Talk:Guildford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guildford article.
Article policies
OpenStreetMap held a mapping party in this area on 28-29 October 2006 to make a creative commons licensed map that may be used in Wikipedia articles.

Thanks to all those wikipedians that took part.

See http://www.openstreetmap.org for details of other planned mapping parties.

Contents

[edit] History

The current history section is a messy and disjointed collection of commentaries on events in guildford's past. It needs better organisation, breaking down into subsections and some better naration. Any contributions would be welcome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmtlewy (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] County Town

Isn't there somne doubt whether Guildford is the county town of Surrey? The county council is actually situated in Kingston. If there isn't a source for this should we not clarify this?

--"Henry III confirmed Guildford's status as the county town of Surrey in 1257" from the Guildford site: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/GuildfordWeb/Leisure/Guildford+Museum/GuildfordSites/HistoryNotes/Medieval+Guildford.htm

The Surrey County Council Website states "Guildford is Surrey’s County Town, in all but name." Chris Bradshaw 12:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 20 days later, page changed to include these references. Chris Bradshaw 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this was changed back today, I went back to the County Councils website to have another look into this. The Council itself doesn't seem exactly sure whether Guildford is the County Town or not.
Guildford IS NOT the county town
  1. Surrey County Council Website:Highways in Guildford. Retrieved on 2007-03-27. “Guildford is Surrey’s County Town, in all but name.”
Guildford IS the county town
  1. Surrey County Council Website: Discover Guildford. Retrieved on 2007-03-27. “as Surrey's county town, Guildford offers everything you'd expect from a city”
  2. Surrey County Council Website:the SPATIAL strategy. Retrieved on 2007-03-27. “Guildford is an historic market town. Its emergence as the ‘county’ town reflected this historic role and its position on the A3.”
  3. Surrey County Council Website: Minutes of Executive Meeting (2001-11-03). Retrieved on 2007-03-27. “When I drive into Guildford I admire the view of Guildford Cathedral the symbol of our County town.”
  4. Surrey County Council Website: Summary of Representations and the County Council’s Response (2004-10). Retrieved on 2007-03-27. “Seek clarification of impact of new County Hall on Guildford's role as County Town”
  5. Surrey County Council Website:Chapter 2: The Location of Development. Retrieved on 2007-03-27. “Guildford is the county town”
  6. Surrey County Council Website: Minerals and Waste Application GU00/1421. Retrieved on 2007-03-27. “Proposals would propose a threat to Guildford’s economy as future commercial investment would be deterred; would adversely affect existing businesses, residential property; strategic role as an important county town and .....”
So the consensus (at least within the County Council, who you'd expect to know where their County Town is) seems to be that Guildford IS the county town (unlike my previous thinking). They don't seem that sure however, because one page actually says there isn't a county town at all!
  1. Surrey County Council Website. Retrieved on 2007-03-27. “There is no official county town”
Chris B 12:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spectrum

Is the Spectrum Leisure Centre the same place as the "Spectrum" that houses the Guildford Flames? --Smack (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, The Spectrum Leisure Centre is the full name but it is mostly known as "The Spectrum" or "Spectrum" (by locals at least). KingGorack 22:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was not to move this article --Lox (t,c) 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied from WP:RM:

Guildford (disambiguation) → Guildford - I'm trying to turn a primary-topic disambiguation into an equal disambiguation --Smack (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose the move, and the move of Guildford to Guildford, England, which I've reversed while this move is being discussed. Virtually all the links to Guildford are for the important English town, which is much more important than either of the Australian suburbs. This fits primary topic disambiguation perfectly. sjorford (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose A town of 130,000 is inherently a primary topic compared to a suburb of Sydney with estimated area of 1/8 of a square kilometre (figured out using locations and MSN MapQuest, so may be slightly off), somewhat smaller than Vatican City, or a suburb of Perth which is one of 40 suburbs in the LGA of Swan, which again is one of 30 LGAs of Perth. On average, that would mean 1,250 people in each of these suburbs, so significantly smaller than Guildford, Surrey. Sam Vimes 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, aside from being considerably smaller, the other Guilfords undoubtedly derive their name from the original. This is very good candidate for remaining as primary topic disambiguation. older≠wiser 13:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proteus (Talk) 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Guildford, England

The only remaining link to Guildford, England is on this page, could G,E be deleted?

--Kylet 01:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No need. If someone does a search for Guildford, England they will get to the right place. SilkTork *YES! 10:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guildford Bearded Lady

Http://www.seasonworkers.com/fe/forum/uploads/packtim/2006-10-06 014454 bearded lady of guildford.JPG

The Bearded Lady Of Guildford

The reference in 'Notable Residents' to the Guildford Bearded Lady(above) should not have been removed. Every resident in Guildford knows the Bearded Lady and there are now many sites created about her.

Google Search: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=guildford+bearded+lady&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Myspace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=84612360 - Danny Hughes (Yes, the Danny Hughes)

Unfortunately all those links fail the WP:RS criteria. Not too mention she does not appear to be notable. David D. (Talk) 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the person who posted above, but he/she's right; everyone in Guildford and the surrounding area knows her. She won't have an official website because she can't. Can we do some sort of poll? Will that count? Srxcef 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Best would be an article in the local paper. Testomony even if true is not rgarded as reliable. See WP:RS and WP:OR. By the way i was not suggesting that she sart her own web site or that such would be a good source. I was suggesting that those that are keen to see her presence on the internet should start a web site for her. David D. (Talk) 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
For reference: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_18#My_article_which_was_factual_was_removed_because_x_thought_it_wasn.27t David D. (Talk) 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

She's more notable than pretty much all the so-called notable residences on that list. Everyone knows the Bearded lady.
(Unsigned comment)


Nonsense! I live in Guildford and I have never heard of the alleged "bearded lady" except on this page. If anybody can point to a proper referenceable source for the "bearded lady" then maybe there is a case for inclusion. Otherwise, this is just unencyclopedic nonsense. Furthermore, I am concerned that picking on somebody that a few people may have seen on the street and writing about their unusual appearance might even be considered harrasment. --DanielRigal 15:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, not everyone knows the bearded lady...I've lived in Guildford for nearly 20 years and have not (knowingly) seen her, (possibly because I avoid shopping in Guildford if I can help it!), although I did see someone scary in Homebase last December who might fit the description... Perhaps someone who knows one of the journos at the Surrey Ad could persuade them to run an article? (if you're really that worried!!) - but the potential harrassment is an important consideration.
Incidentally, I found this reference to the Bearded Lady Comedy Club at The Star pub. Are the two related in any way? (this could improve your case for inclusion!)
EdJogg 15:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On Facebook.com there is an Appreciation Society for the Bearded Lady. It has 5,693 members. And there's more than one group, too.

Well, here are some pictures of the Bearded Lady for those who don't seem to venture out to town. Ever.

http://photos-889.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v45/8/112/286106332/n286106332_438889_9772.jpg http://photos.pe.facebook.com/v57/197/79/510861057/n510861057_10352_2355.jpg http://photos-789.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v45/149/19/505339196/n505339196_5789_6537.jpg http://photos-360.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v50/246/115/503796013/n503796013_3360_239.jpg http://photos-678.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v60/202/1/518102947/n518102947_17678_7222.jpg

I think with an Appreciation Society of over 5,000 she's more notable than most of the people listed. Now how it had be claimed as nonsense that she doesn't exist just because YOU haven't personally seen here out and about I don't really know...

- Can you meet the WP:RS criteria? Are there any references in the press or a book (or at this stage, even a reliable website) to the person in question. If the only links are from kids photos on facebook then no, this is just harrasment. Chris Bradshaw 09:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I used the word "nonsense" for two reasons. Firstly because people have claimed that "everbody" knows the "bearded lady" and that clearly is not true. Secondly, I think it is nonsensical for an encyclopedia (please rememeber that this is an encyclopedia!) to be filled up with references which essentially state "There is an unusual looking person in this town". There are unusual looking people everywhere. This is not remotely notable. --DanielRigal 09:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the bearded lady and am usually sceptical about such things. She was wearing a rather elegant leopard skin coat. I was delighted to hear it mentioned here because I thought I was seeing things at the time. It's certainly not harassment to talk about her, she's very much a happy novelty. Maybe if I see her again or if someone else does, they could politely ask to take a photo of her. I saw her next to the canal just below debenhams at the lock. Seeing really is believing SuzanneKn 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to set up a proper site about her. Nobody is harassing her but she's real.

No one doubts she real. But she is not encyclopedic. David D. (Talk) 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Could there not even be a section under Trivia for her David? - Danny Hughes

No, there shouldn't, just because something is not notable doesn't mean it can still be squeezed in there. Anyway the trivia section should be integrated into the other text (see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles). Chriswiki 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Because there are quite a lot of article about Guildford related things, I created Category:Guildford and put some, but not all, of the relevant articles in the category. --Christhebull 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Residents

In an effort to make the article more encyclopedic, I've taken this section and tried to create more of a prose than a list. It's not 100% successful IMO, and does read a bit like a list still, but it's a start. Hopefully the inclusion of "See also: People from Guildford" will help prevent the list from reoccuring (assuming the Consensus agrees with me on this).

I've kept pretty much everything that was in the list format before, and even added a couple of wikilinks. Oh, and the section definitely needs more references adding. Chris Bradshaw 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked some of the punctuation to try to tie-together related sub-clauses, and keep others apart. The section now includes a variety of sub-clause/list presentations, and you may care to tweak the wording further to remove some of the variants!! In one or two cases, extra details were required to make the presentation work properly.
I'm not sure how much further you can remove this from reading like a list, without adding padding for the sake of it. It is, after all – and always will be –  still a list, but in prose rather than bulleted. Personally I think a straight bulleted-list is easier to use to find information, but as WP prefers prose to lists, then this is as good as any.
Question: This list should have a very strong correlation to the Category. All people in the list should also be in the Category (presumably), but not necessarily vice-versa. How do you decide which belong in the article, and which just the Category?? For example, I discovered Celia Imrie (one of the few names I'd heard of   :o)   ) in the Cat, yet despite being born and trained in Guildford she is not listed as a notable resident.
EdJogg 14:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional punctuation, I must admit my head was begginning to hurt with all that moving!

In answer to the question, I agree that everyone in the article should be in the category, but not vice-versa. Deciding (and getting concensus) on who should be in the article will be hard- I guess this happens elsewhere on wikipedia quite a bit. My opinion is that for starters only referenced entries (i.e. there's a reference saying that Mr X lives in Guildford) should be in the article. Beyond that some class of "most notable" should be enforced, possibly a "top 5" or "top 10", and perhaps focusing more on people who are notable as being "from Guildford". That's just my opinion though...... Chris Bradshaw 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest tougher qualifications, having thought about it a bit...
The Category title is Category:People from Guildford, so that will include everyone who lives or lived in Guildford, or, presumably, was born there. (The Cat introduction should state what the membership qualifications should be: ie just 'born in', or 'born in or lived/living at', or ??)


To be included in the article section, the person must have some (notable?) connection with Guildford beyond just living there. The current qualifiers would be: Yvonne Arnaud (for the theatre), Lewis Carroll (grave, sculptures, etc, but according to Lewis Carroll, the house was his sister's!!), Roger Fry (alhough his own article does not mention Guildford!) and George Abbot (obvious candidate, not yet in list!!)
Failing that, only 'very notable' people to be included. Tricky to define, of course, but ignoring contemporary entertainment/sport celebrities, the list would include: P. G. Wodehouse and Alan Turing. To define which 'celebrities' are important-enough runs into POV territory. I would include Michael Buerk and Bonnie Langford as "most people have heard of them", and Edward Kelsey for The Archers, though these are all POV and others would disagree.
Tricky!
It is interesting to note that most of the people I have highlighted are NOT yet in the Cat!
EdJogg 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe Davina McCall is from Guildford, or at least lived there for some time. She should be included in the list when sourced.
To move this along, I've added Bonnie Langford, Michael Buerk, Yvonne Arnaud, and Lewis Carroll to Category:People from Guildford. I didn't add P. G. Wodehouse, as the article states he was "born prematurely to Eleanor Wodehouse whilst she was visiting Guildford" which I'm not sure counts. I also missed out Roger Fry for the reasons given above by EdJogg, and similarly Edward Kelsey who's page doesn't (yet) mention Guildford. Chris Bradshaw 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Stranglers in their very embrionic days certainly resided at Jet Black's Jackpot off-licence before going off to squat in [Chiddingfold]], but was it not located on the town end of Farnham Road, ie between the railway bridge and the long-since equally demolished The Castle pub on the corner rather than anywhere that would have been demolished to make way for The Friary? I recall it is visible in the background of the photo of The Castle in The Public Houses & Breweries of Guildford book. And, in spite of his schooling, didn't Jean Jacques Burnel actually live in Godalming? (Kmitch87 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

I've been looking around and haven't found a reference for the Stranglers bit in the Trivia section. The mention of Burnel in the Notable Residents section has a web reference at least, but maybe the Trivia entry on the Stranglers should actually go as a source doesn't seem forthcoming? Chriswiki 14:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency Services

Does anyone think there is a need to retain the section titled Emergency Services in the text of the article? The information in there is little more than is given in the infobox at the top of the article. opinions??? Chriswiki 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, seems redundant to me. Unless there's anything anyone can add that wouldn't be suitable for the infobox I reckon it can go. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guilford/Guildford disambig merger

Please see Talk:Guilford#Merger proposal for discussion as to whether everything take is named after this town, under one spelling or the other, should be on this page. Timrollpickering 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation of Guildford

Since when has the first D in Guildford been silent? I realise that it is commonly mispronounced "Gillford", but many people who don't go in for sloppy English do pronounce that D as in "Gild-ford". I have heard it pronounced "Gilt-ford" on more than one occasion. Many people seem to pronounce Police and secretary as "Pleece" and "Secce-tree" in the same way, but that doesn't mean that they have become the correct pronounciation!

Amy (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the the first D hasn't always been in the name so there is historic precedent for not pronouncing it. And it's a very common pronounciation (especially on the news and railways), far more so that "pleece", so how is it "sloppy" to use the common pronounciation? I grew up in Surrey and I've never heard it pronounced "Gild-ford". Timrollpickering (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)